State Water Resources Control Board - Public Hearing on Division of Water Rights Enforcement Section’s Draft Ceaseand-Desist Order to BlueTriton Brands, Inc. - Hearing Officer’s Rulings on Parties’Comments on and Objections to Draft Proposed Order

Sep 16, 2026

Upload by Jiven

Public hearing materials outline the Administrative Hearings Office of the State Water Resources Control Board’s draft cease-and-desist order process directed to BlueTriton Brands, Inc. The document summarizes comments and objections filed on May 8, 2023, and records the hearing officer’s responses and edit rulings. It addresses disputes over cited authorities, contractual and permitting requirements tied to the San Manuel Band, bypass versus diversion flows, and non-substantive typographical corrections within the Proposed Order.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages32

Reading Time11 min

AccessFree to download

Background

Prosecution Team Comments

Story of Stuff Project Comments

State Water Resources Control Board Public Hearing on Division of Water Rights Enforcement Section’s Draft Ceaseand-Desist Order to BlueTriton Brands, Inc.: Hearing Officer’s Rulings on Parties’Comments on and Objections to Draft Proposed Order Background On April 21, 2023, the Administrative Hearings Office (“AHO”) of the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board,”“Board,” or “SWRCB”) issued a Notice of Draft Proposed Order in this proceeding. The AHO’s Draft Proposed Order (“Draft Proposed Order”) was enclosed with that notice. On May 8, 2023, eight parties and party representatives filed comments on and objections to the Draft Proposed Order. The following paragraphs summarize these comments and objections and discuss my responses and rulings. Section 2.12.4, on page 47 of the Proposed Order that I transmitted to the Clerk of the Board on May 26, 2023 (“Proposed Order”), contains this citation: “(2023-05-30 hearing officer’s responses and rulings. )” That citation refers to this document, which I had planned to send to the parties on May 30, 2023. Because I now am sending this document to the parties on May 27, 2023, I will ask the Board to change this citation to“(2023-05-27 hearing officer’s responses and rulings. )” before the Board considers adopting the proposed order. Prosecution Team Comments Comment A.: “Cite additional authorities that support the State Water Board’s water right permitting authority for diversions from Tunnels 2 and 3 and Boreholes 1, 1A, 7, 7A, 7B, 7C and 8.” (2023-05-08 Prosecution Team Comments (“Prosecution Team Comments”), p. 1:21-22 . ) Response: Except for State v. Hansen (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 604, the court decisions the Prosecution Team cites in this section of its comments all were in cases involving water-right disputes between various water users. They did not involve the State Water Board’s water-right permitting or enforcement authority or the statutes on which those authorities are based. State v. Hansen did involve the water-right permitting authority of a Board predecessor and was cited on pages 63 and 65 of the Draft Proposed Order. Comment B.: “Clarify that the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians have (sic) contractual rights authorizing diversion through the Respondent’s facilities to exercise their riparian rights to East Twin Creek.” (Prosecution Team Comments, p. 2:12-14 . ) The San Manuel Band’s right to receive water diverted through the facilities of the Respondent, BlueTriton Brands, Inc. (“BlueTriton”) is “strictly contractual” and BlueTriton’s diversions require a Special Use Permit from the San Bernardino National Forest. (Id. , p. 3:10-21 . ) The AHO should edit the Draft Proposed Order to recognize these facts. (Id. , p. 3:22--4:2 . ) Response: I have edited text in the sections 1.0, 3.7.1 and 4.0 to recognize these factsand to clarify that the order would not adjudicate the San Manuel Band’s land or riparian right claims or limit the Board, or any other regulatory agency or court, from taking any future actions regarding these claims. The edited text is in the Proposed Order. Comment C.: “Clarify requirement[s] in the Draft Proposed Order’s order section.(Prosecution Team Comments, p. 4:3 . ) “Flows from Tunnels 2 and 3, and Boreholes 1, 1A, 7, 7A, 7B, 7C and 8 that exceed deliveries to the San Manuel Band should be bypassed at these locations, rather than diverted, transported through pipelines, and then discharged at the discharged (sic) facility near Boreholes 10, 11 and 12, or discharged somewhere else in the watershed.” (Id. , p. 4:15-18 . ) The AHO should add text to Orders 1.a. and 1. b. clarifying that deliveries to the San Manuel Band are for its riparian uses. (Id. , pp. 4:28--5:4 . ) Response: I have made appropriate edits to these portions of the Draft Proposed Order. Comment D.: “Detailed non-substantive comments,” including spelling and typographical errors. Response. I have edited the Draft Proposed Order t

FAQs

What is the purpose of this public hearing document?

It summarizes parties’ comments and objections to the Draft Proposed Order and documents the hearing officer’s responses and rulings before the Board considers adoption.

How does the hearing officer address disputes about the San Manuel Band’s contractual and permitting rights?

The hearing officer states the relevant rights are strictly contractual and that diversions require a Special Use Permit, then edits the Draft Proposed Order to reflect these facts while clarifying the order’s scope.

Why does the Proposed Order not include CDO provisions regarding diversions from certain boreholes?

The hearing officer explains the evidence and allegations in the record did not provide sufficient notice under Water Code section 1834, so the order would deny the request without prejudice for further investigation.

Sep 16, 2026

Upload by Jiven